Post-traumatic growth in parents after a child s admission to intensive care: maybe Nietzsche was right?

Intensive Care Med (2009) 35:919 923 DOI 10.1007/s00134-009-1444-1 PEDIATRIC BRIEF REPORT Gillian Colville Penelope Cream Post-traumatic growth in parents after a child s admission to intensive care: maybe Nietzsche was right? Received: 7 May 2008 Accepted: 2 February 2009 Published online: 19 February 2009 Ó Springer-Verlag 2009 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1444-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users. G. Colville ()) Paediatric Psychology Service, St George s Hospital, London SW17 0QT, UK e-mail: gcolvill@sgul.ac.uk Tel.:?44-2087252214 Fax:?44-2087252251 G. Colville P. Cream St George s University of London, London, UK Abstract Objective: The aim of this prospective study was to establish the degree to which parents report post-traumatic growth after the intensive care treatment of their child. Design: Prospective cross-sectional cohort study. Setting: Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). Subjects: A total of 50 parents of children, admitted to PICU for[12 h. Measurements and results: Parents provided stress ratings as their child was discharged from PICU and, 4 months later, completed postal questionnaires rating their anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and post-traumatic growth. As much as 44 parents (88%) indicated on the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) [1] that they had experienced a positive change to a great degree as a result of their experiences in PICU. Parents of children who were ventilated (P = 0.024) reported statistically higher post-traumatic growth as did parents of older children (P = 0.032). PTGI scores were positively correlated with post-traumatic stress scores at 4 months (P = 0.021), but on closer inspection this relationship was found to be curvilinear. Conclusions: Post-traumatic growth emerged as a salient concept for this population. It was more strongly associated with moderate levels of post-traumatic stress, than high or low levels. Keywords Post-traumatic growth Post-traumatic stress Parents Intensive care Introduction That which does not kill us makes us stronger (Friedrich Nietzsche 1889) The literature on psychological trauma has traditionally focused on pathological reactions. Recently, however, there has been an increasing acknowledgement that through struggling with adversity, a traumatised person may ultimately come to function at a higher level than before, demonstrating what has come to be termed as post-traumatic growth [1]. This phenomenon has been described in a number of different populations traumatised after disaster, war and other forms of adversity, including bereaved parents [2] and parents of disabled children [3]. The degree to which people report post-traumatic growth after a crisis is related to a number of factors, which include the severity of the trauma, constitutional factors such as optimism and high self-worth and also particular coping styles and satisfaction with level of social support [4]. A meta-analytic study of 87 studies has also found that benefit finding and posttraumatic stress symptoms are positively associated [5], although some authors caution that this relationship may be curvilinear, with those experiencing low or very high levels of stress less likely to experience growth [6]. There are now a number of studies confirming the prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptomatology in

920 parents after their child s hospitalisation on a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) [7]. There is, however, very little information on perceived growth in this population, beyond anecdotal observations that parents report positive as well as negative changes after their child s period of critical illness [8]. The main aims of this prospective study were to investigate the degree to which parents report post-traumatic growth after their child s PICU admission and to investigate the nature of the associations between this phenomenon and other variables, thereby adding to the literature by providing information on a group, which has not previously been studied. It was hypothesised that parents whose experiences had been more traumatic (objectively and/or subjectively) would report higher levels of post-traumatic growth. Methods This study was part of a larger randomised controlled trial, evaluating the impact of a PICU follow-up clinic on parents psychological well-being [9], for which ethical approval was obtained and written informed consent required. In the main study, parents were allocated randomly to the intervention group (appointment with PICU staff to discuss child s admission 2 months after discharge) or the control group (not offered an appointment) and were all followed up at 4 months. The present study reports on the parents in the control group only. Participants in the main study were the parents of children admitted consecutively over a 16-month period for [12 h, to an eight-bed PICU in an inner city area. Parents were excluded if they were not available to complete the baseline stress measure (n = 131), if the child died (n = 18) or if the unit staff felt that it was inappropriate to approach them (n = 19). Illness severity on admission was measured using the Paediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) [10], and the family s level of socioeconomic deprivation was measured using the Townsend Deprivation Index [11], which is derived from the UK census data relating to four variables: rates of car ownership, employment, home ownership and overcrowding. They completed the Parental Stressor Scale: PICU [12] within 48 h of their child s discharge. This is a 37 item questionnaire with good internal consistency and acceptable test retest reliability, which measures parents perceptions of PICU-related stress from 1 ( not stressful ) to 5 ( extremely stressful ). The total score is the mean of the subscale scores. At 4 months after discharge, the parents received the following three questionnaires in the post: (1) The Postraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) is a 21-item self-report measure of positive outcomes following traumatic experience with acceptable internal consistency and test retest reliability. The total score (range 0 105) is the sum of the scores on the five subscales: relating to others ; new possibilities ; personal strength ; spiritual change and appreciation of life. (2) The Impact of Event Scale (IES) [13] is a 15-item self-report measure of symptoms of post-traumatic stress, with scores of above 35 regarded as clinically significant [14]. It has good split-half and test retest reliability, factor structure and validity [15]. (3) The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is a self-report questionnaire, made up of two separate seven-item scales, measuring symptoms of anxiety and depression. Scores of over 11, on either scale, are assumed to be clinically significant. It has demonstrated good levels of internal consistency and test retest reliability [16]. (Further information on the outcome measures is provided in the electronic supplementary material) Given the small sample size, the fact that not all variables were normally distributed and that not all data were independent (when data from both parents of a child was used), non-parametric statistics were used to examine the associations between variables. Results Of the 164 families approached, 133 (81%) agreed to take part in the original trial and, of these, 61 were allocated to the control arm. The children of families who took part were admitted for longer (P = 0.029), more likely to be ventilated (P = 0.044) and less likely to come from an ethnic minority group (P \ 0.001) or live in a deprived area (P = 0.001). Of the 61 control families who were recruited, 43 provided outcome data at 4 months. The children of those who dropped out between baseline and follow-up were statistically less sick in terms of mortality risk (P = 0.039), rate of emergency admission (P = 0.036) and ventilation status (P = 0.046), but did not differ in terms of baseline stress levels. A total of 50 parents (33 mothers; three fathers and seven mother father pairs) completed the PTGI in total. Sample characteristics are given in Table 1. The PTGI total scores of the parents were normally distributed. Mean (SD) total score was 49.0 (23.9), with good internal consistency (0.93). In total, 44 parents (88%) indicated that they had experienced positive change to a great or very great degree. Paired comparisons indicated that parents mean item scores for personal strength and appreciation of life were

921 Table 1 Sample characteristics and associations with parents scores on Posttraumatic Growth Inventory and Impact of Event Scale (n = 50) Sample characteristics a Associations with PTGI score n = 50 parents P b Associations with IES score n = 50 parents P b Parents n = 50 Age (years) 40 (23 58) 0.910 0.036* Male 11 (22%) 0.140 0.916 PSS:PICU at 48 h 2.41 (1.14 4.33) 0.185 \0.001** Anxiety (HADS) at 4 months 8 (0 20) 0.179 \0.001** Depression (HADS) at 4 months 4 (0 17) 0.331 0.001** IES at 4 months 21.5 (0 58) 0.021* PTGI at 4 months 50 (6 101) 0.021* Children n = 43 Age (years) 2.83 (0.05 16.49) 0.032* 0.025* Male 27 (63%) 0.396 0.708 White UK 30 (70%) 0.220 0.553 TDI 0.05 (-4.84 to 10.87) 0.622 0.012* LOS (h) 70 (12 1008) 0.374 0.078 Emergency admission 35 (81%) 0.272 0.063 Ventilated 24 (56%) 0.024* 0.322 PIM score 2.14 (0.16 17.63) 0.193 0.227 PTG Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, PSS:PICU Parental Stressor Scale:PICU, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; IES Impact of Event Scale, TDI Townsend Deprivation Index, LOS length of stay, PIM Paediatric Index of Mortality * P \ 0.05; ** P \ 0.001 (all significant associations were positive) a Values are given as median (range) or n (%) b Spearman s r for continuous variables, Mann Whitney U test for categorical variables 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Relating to others Personal strength Appreciation of life New possibilities Spiritual change Posttraumatic Growth Inventory Subscales Fig. 1 Distribution of mean item subscale scores on the posttraumatic growth inventory (n = 50). The box and whisker plots show the median, interquartile range and range of the group mean item scores for each of the five subscales of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (0 = I did not experience this change as a result of my crisis, 5 = I experienced this change to a very great degree as a result of my crisis ) Fig. 2 Relationship between post-traumatic stress and post-traumatic growth at 4 months (n = 50 parents). The graph illustrates the inverted-u curvilinear relationship between the parents posttraumatic stress scores and post-traumatic growth scores, 4 months after their child s discharge from intensive care. PTGI Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, IES Impact of Event Scale

922 significantly higher than those for new possibilities or spiritual change (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, P \ 0.002; see Fig. 1). Associations with PTGI scores and scores on the IES are given in Table 1. Parents of children who were ventilated and parents of older children, reported statistically higher post-traumatic growth on the PTGI. IES scores were associated with baseline stress, deprivation and age of parent and child and intercorrelated with anxiety and depression. A significant positive association was also found between parents IES and PTGI scores at 4 months. Further analysis revealed that a quadratic solution (in the form of an inverted-u) fitted the data better [R 2 = 0.23, F(2, 47) = 6.90, P = 0.002] than a linear solution [R 2 = 0.05, F(1, 48) = 2.42, P = 0.126] (see Fig. 2). Discussion This study provides further evidence for the existence of post-traumatic growth by demonstrating the validity of the PTGI in a group who have not previously been assessed with this instrument. It also suggests that the psychological impact of this experience is not necessarily wholly negative. The overwhelming majority of parents indicated that they had experienced at least one of the benefits listed in the inventory to a great degree, following their child s PICU hospitalisation. The mean PTGI score for this sample was somewhat lower than that reported in original studies in the USA, which may be a reflection of the sample s higher mean age [4] or of cultural differences [17]. The finding that PTGI scores were positively correlated with post-traumatic stress scores is consistent with the literature [5] and indicative of the complex nature of the individual s reaction to adversity. However, the fact that their patterns of association with other variables were not the same suggests that different mechanisms may influence their development after a traumatic experience, and the curvilinear relationship between stress and growth suggests that there is a levelling-off of benefit-finding at high levels of stress in this situation [7]. One objective measure of the severity of the child s condition (ventilation status) was associated with subsequent post-traumatic growth, but parents baseline stress was not. The association with the child s age was not predicted and, if replicated, warrants further investigation. This preliminary study had a number of limitations. The sample size was small and parents of less sick children, and those from ethnic minorities and deprived areas were under-represented. Furthermore, there was no assessment of parents subjective appraisal of threat to the child s life (which is associated with the development of post-traumatic stress [18]), or of parents personality type or coping style, both of which may have influenced the relationship between stress and growth. Finally, although useful as an overall indicator of the level of post-traumatic stress [19], the IES does not include measurement of symptoms of hyperarousal. Longer term follow-up with parents in this situation would establish whether post-traumatic growth is ultimately associated with better adjustment, as Nietzsche proposed over a century ago and as has been found in disaster survivors [20]. If this is the case, the next challenge for researchers will be to evaluate whether a focus on post-traumatic growth enhances the effectiveness of psychological interventions with this traumatised group. Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Hold my Hand Appeal, St George s Hospital Charitable Foundation and the Paediatric Intensive Care Society, UK. References 1. Tedeschi R, Calhoun L (1996) The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J Trauma Stress 9:455 471 2. Engelkemeyer SM, Marwit SJ (2008) Posttraumatic growth in bereaved parents. J Trauma Stress 21(3):344 346 3. King LA, Scollon CK, Ramsey C, Williams T (2000) Stories of life transition: subjective well-being and ego development in parents of children with Down syndrome. J Res Pers 34:509 536 4. Linley P, Joseph S (2004) Positive change following trauma and adversity. J Trauma Stress 17:11 21 5. Helgeson VS, Reynolds KA, Tomich PL (2006) A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth. J Consult Clin Psychol 74:797 816 6. Fontana A, Rosenheck R (1998) Psychological benefits and liabilities of traumatic exposure in the war zone. J Trauma Stress 11:485 505 7. Shudy M, de Almeida ML, Ly S, Landon C, Groft S, Jenkins TL, Nicholson CE (2006) Impact of pediatric critical illness and injury on families: a systematic literature review. Pediatrics 118(S3):S203 S219 8. Colville G, Darkins J, Hesketh J, Bennett V, Alcock J, Noyes J (2009) The impact on parents of a child s admission to intensive care: integration of qualitative findings from a cross-sectional study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2008.10. 002 9. Colville G, Cream P (2006) A PICU follow-up clinic: factors determining attendance and effects on psychological distress. Pediatr Crit Care Med 7:410 10. Pearson G, Stickley J, Shann F (2001) Calibration of the paediatric index of mortality in UK paediatric intensive care units. Arch Dis Child 84:125 128

923 11. Townsend P, Phillimore P, Beattie A (1988) Health and deprivation: inequality and the north. Croom Helm, Andover 12. Carter M, Miles M (1989) The Parental Stressor Scale: Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Matern Child Nurs J 18:187 198 13. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W (1979) Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 41:209 218 14. Neal LA, Busuttil W, Rollins J, Herepath R, Strike P, Turnbull GJ (1994) Convergent validity of measures of post-traumatic disorder in a mixed military and civilian population. J Trauma Stress 7:447 455 15. Weiss DS, Marmar CR (1997) The Impact of Event Scale-Revised. In: Wilson JP, Keane TM (eds) Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD. Guilford Press, NY, pp 399 411 16. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP (1983) The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67:361 370 17. Morris BA, Shakespeare-Finch Rieck, Newbery J (2005) Multidimensional nature of posttraumatic growth in an Australian population. J Trauma Stress 18:575 585 18. Balluffi A, Kassam-Adams N, Kazak A, Tucker M, Dominguez T, Helfaer M (2004) Traumatic stress in parents of children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med 5:547 553 19. Sundin EC, Horowitz MJ (2002) Impact of Event Scale: psychometric properties. Br J Psychiatry 180:205 209 20. McMillen J, Smith E, Fisher R (1997) Perceived benefits and mental health after three types of disaster. J Consult Clin Psychol 65:1037 1043